Dar's Blog Roasts

[Dardedar]

DAR
When I get up in the morning, I like to roast fundies. It gets me going. Gets me thinking. I have been doing this for very long time. I do it to teach and to stimulate me to learn new things. It used to be mostly religious fundies but they hardly put up any fight any more. Political fundies (dogmatists) will do just fine. Since they all seem to quickly run away from here I have decided to go and get them. Hunt them down and roast them on their own blogs. Politely, with accurate well referenced responses. I am not interested in trolling, or crapping on someone's blog but I do think it may be possible to get some of these people to think a little more carefully before they post. And that's a good thing. Reasonable people will usually agree with me on the facts, because I am careful to usually be right on the facts. Opinions of course, will vary. It's not to much to ask people to have their facts straight.

When I have a comment that may be of general interest, I'll post it here.

I have been having some success with this lady. I just posted this response in this thread: the anti-soma

***
HOLLY: The Democrats are, if anything, worse, depending on the issue.>>

DAR
I notice you don't give any examples. Not one. The record shows otherwise and this is easy to show. The American people are figuring this out.

HOLLY: "...removing the option of choosing schools from families that cannot afford private school tuition,..."

DAR
My opposition to vouchers is having government money funneled to support religion. The founders were against that.

HOLLY: "...encouraging dependency upon government programs,..."

DAR
How is that anything but a slogan?

HOLLY:
"I think many Americans think the way I do: that smaller government is the way to go."

DAR
Okay, so let's compare:

"The White House's own numbers best illustrate how shamefully the Party of Reagan has misspent our tax dollars over the last ten years. When comparing its fiscal record to that of the Clinton administration, George W. Bush's White House loses in a landslide."
-- Republican Joe Scarborough, "Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day, pg. 27

"Using the Bush White House's own numbers, the federal government under Bill Clinton grew at an annual rate of 3.4 percent. But over the past four years under George W. Bush and his Republican Congress, the federal government has grown at a staggering rate of
10.4 percent. More damning is the fact that... George Bush never once vetoed a congressional bill."
--Republican Joe Scarborough, "Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day”, pg. 29 (2004)

And this is before considering the trillions Iraq is going to cost us. There's the myth, and then there's the reality.

HOLLY: "The Republican party assumes that the majority of Americans... believe in family, and believe in parents loving and teaching their children, they're right."

DAR
When republicans throw around the word "family" it seems to be an empty slogan. No one believes repub's love their families more than demo's, but that's the absurd implication.

Let me check something I hadn't considered before: divorce rates by party. Oops.

***
October 10, 2006

Why Do Republicans Divorce More Often Than Democrats?

Republicans are the party of family values.

They’re the party that protects the sanctity of marriage. Their morality is stronger than their opposition.

So say the Republicans. But the statistics say differently.

Of the top 15 states for divorce rates in 2005, all 15 voted for Bush in 2004. All fifteen.

Of the 12 lowest states for divorce rates, 10 voted for Kerry.

http://www.thinkingliberal.com/the_free ... ublic.html

DAR
Can't say I'm surprised.

HOLLY: "We aren't so much against civil unions as we are against loud, obnoxious activists that want not equality but special treatment,..."

DAR
Equality is not "special treatment." Was it special treatment when Blacks wanted to not have to sit on the back of the bus? No, but I bet bigots said it was at the time.
Gays want, and will shortly get, equality. And those who fight to keep them from achieving their equal rights will soon (very soon) look as bigoted as someone who would today suggest that blacks should drink from a different water fountain or suggest that allowing them to drink from the same one is "special treatment." The young don't care about this issue. They barely understand the supposed concern. They laugh at it. This is an appropriate response. The pious hate to be mocked.

And this just in:
"...a new poll from ABC News and the Washington Post gives gay marriage an outright plurality, with 49 percent of adults supporting gay marriage and 46 percent opposed."

http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUni ... Issues.pdf

Also:

"...a CBS/NYT poll put support for full marriage rights at 42 percent, versus 25 percent for civil unions and 28 percent for no legal recognition."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/27 ... 2643.shtml

We Americans love to blather on about our freedoms and rights, but here are the freedoms and rights gays are enjoying in countries that are ahead of us on this:

***
* Denmark in 1989 became the first country to grant registered same-sex partners the same rights as married couples.

* Norway, Sweden and Iceland all enacted similar legislation in 1996, and Finland followed suit six years later.

* Netherlands became the first country to offer full civil marriage rights to gay couples in 2001.

* Belgium allowed gay marriage in 2003.

* Canada and Spain legalized gay marriage in 2005.

* Germany has allowed same-sex couples to register for "life partnerships" since 2001.

* France in 1999 introduced a civil contract called the Pacs, which gives some rights to cohabiting couples, regardless of sex. These do not include the full rights of marriage.

* Luxembourg, allowed civil partnerships in 2004.

* New Zealand recognized gay civil unions in December, 2004.

* Britain gave same-sex couples in registered partnerships similar rights to married couples in December of 2005.


HOLLY: "...the rates of infidelity and divorce amongst straight couples."

DAR
Is highest in religious republican areas (Oklahoma) and lowest in the first state to allow gay marriage (Mass.). Interesting.


HOLLY: A right is something you're born with, and gays have exactly the same rights as straight people do.>>

DAR
Of course they do not. They will soon. In my lifetime. I am really going to enjoy this. What a time to live! The bigots lose another one. Why are the conservatives always on the wrong side of these things? Because they are stuck in the past perhaps.

HOLLY: "They don't have some government granted privileges, true."

DAR
You just said: "gays have exactly the same rights as straight people do." Obviously, they don't. Some "government granted privileges?" Last I checked it was about 160. Why shouldn't they have these rights? Because of a word?

HOLLY:
"And I have no objection to them being granted the same privileges I have, as a married woman.>>

DAR
Good, then they should be able to get married. Problem solved.

HOLLY: "...no one realizes that the government doesn't do "marriage,..."

DAR
The government bestows and recognizes the legal contract of marriage. Why do you so often say things that are plainly false? That's a bad habit. It's a good idea to proof read and remove false statements before posting them. That's what I do.

D.
-----------------
Bonus:

Many may not know that the Presidential Prayer Team (it really is an organization) in its August 15, 2003 newsletter requested that we pray for a suitable definition of marriage to be codified into law. They urge Americans to:
"Pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles. With many forces insisting on variant definitions of marriage, pray that God's Word and His standards will be honored by our government."

I'm sure any good religious person believes prayer should be balanced by action. So here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals, is a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage on biblical principles:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.) Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

B. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21) Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

C. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

D. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

[Dardedar]

HOLLY: "As for keeping those dependent upon government dependent...I actually do speak from personal experience."

DAR
This is a personal anecdote and does not necessarily reflect the experience of others. Perhaps Joe the Plumber, the man made famous for being against the idea of "spreading the wealth around," had a good experience when he was on welfare. He doesn't talk about it much.

HOLLY: Would you like to e-mail me for the full story of the way Welfare worked up until '96, when President Clinton signed in some real reform?"

DAR
That's okay. I don't doubt it was a disaster and you have clearly been scarred by it. Whenever people have authority or control over other peoples lives (prison, military, social services, religion) there are going to be abuses. It's human nature. This doesn't mean we shouldn't have these situations but rather that they should be implemented better (except for religious power, we don't need that). For some reason the US performs poorly when compared with similar countries in the area of delivering social services (mail service is fantastic however). Maybe it's because the government is in a near constant state of divorce (R v. D) and the far right is constantly trying to destroy or cripple these services under the pretense that they run counter to some bullshit notion of "free enterprise" or "spirit of rugged individualism."

D.
-----------------
The only presidents to add to the debt since WWII have been Reagan, Papa Bush and his son:

"All other presidents since WWII have contributed nothing to the Gross Federal Debt, which now stands at 63.6% of GDP. Bush has so far added to the debt at the same rate as Reagan, but predicts he will slow down in the future, otherwise the debt would reach 77.7% at the end of his second term,..."

http://zfacts.com/p/480.html

[Doug]

And this just in:
"...a new poll from ABC News and the Washington Post gives gay marriage an outright plurality, with 49 percent of adults supporting gay marriage and 46 percent opposed."

http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUni ... Issues.pdf

DOUG
The same poll points out:

Sixty-six percent of adults under age 30 support gay marriage.

Game over. It's just a matter of WHEN, not if.

[Dardedar]

HH (Holly): And remember: I did say that neither party was any better than the other.>>

DAR
My only objection to this claim is that it's not true. It's not even close to true. One is clearly better than the other and this is easy to show. I've already shown that the record of democratic presidents out performs the record of republican presidents in nearly all objective, normative categories we can judge presidents by.

For instance, see:

http://www.academycomputerservice.com/e ... charts.htm

And: http://tinyurl.com/5gbjeg

Imagine if the demo's had held all controlling power of branches of government as the repub's have for six of the last eight years. Imagine that the shit had hit the fan, by all normal measurements, as it had under Bush. Would you find it at all persuasive if someone said, "yeah well, both parties suck and one isn't any better than the other." I certainly hope not.

There comes a time those who had power really need to take some responsibility for their having pooped the national bed so badly. It seems they don't want to take this responsibility but fortunately, the American people are overwhelmingly holding them responsible. And that is as it should be.

D.
-----------------------
"George W. Bush ...is surprisingly vulnerable to a challenge from his right. Issues: his soaring deficits; his preferential option for the rich; his sellout of conservative principle to embrace big government; his failure to protect America's borders and control immigration; his cave-in on the assault-gun law; his concessions to the gay Log Cabin Republicans; his refusal to put a stop to race preferences and reverse discrimination; his free-trade zealotry, which has helped to kill one of every eight manufacturing jobs in the United States while creating jobs in China; and, potentially the most explosive, his "quagmire" in Iraq.”
-- Pat Buchanan, Atlantic Monthly, 9/03

Note, this was in 2003, before Bush even inflicted most of his damage.

[Dardedar]

Anti-Soma comment thread.

HH: "I can honestly say that President Obama scares the crap out of me on both foreign policy..."

DAR
Saw this quote today and thought of you...

"In the turbulent imagination of the hard-core conservative, American foreign policy should be about telling off the rest of the planet.
According to the right-wing mind-set, a manly foreign policy would curtail any effort at seeking influence abroad, cut off assistance
to developing countries, forget about improving our global image and, above all, withdraw from the existing international organizations,
especially the United Nations, which is nothing more than a gargantuan waste of money and a hive of parasitic bureaucrats. Only if we
brusquely and even violently dismiss the obnoxious foreigners who annoy us can we vindicate our political and moral superiority.

Then there is the real world, where we regularly encounter threats like swine flu - and where we must depend on the other people
who live in this world to help protect our nation and our families. Certainly that is the outlook of America’s new presidency,
confirmed with profound urgency after 100 days by the sudden prospect of pandemic disease."

--Joe Conason

LINK

Bush was a foreign policy disaster of gargantuan proportions, destroying decades of long earned American prestige which may or may not come back. In contrast, the cool demeanor of Professor Obama doesn't scare me in the least. And the world breathed a sigh of relief.

D.
--------------------
“You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.”
–GW Bush, 9/7/06

[Dardedar]

The anti-soma: comment thread

HH: "It takes a lot of faith to believe that there are people out there who know what's best for you better than you do. I don't have that kind of faith. I'm kind of sorry you do."

DAR
It not clear what you mean. I don't know of any way I conduct my life that would make someone suggest I ever act as if there are "people out there who know what's best for [me] better than I do."

Well maybe this: If I have a serious health problem, I go to the doctor because he is a highly trained expert in providing methods to get better he has in the past shown that in this area he "knows what's best for me better than I do." Course, if I disagree, I veto his advice.

If I have a problem with criminals I will call the police because in dealing with these people they "may know what's best for me better than I do." Course if they don't come quick enough I may just have to shoot them myself.

Sometimes I take my truck to the shop since some repairs are beyond my ken and the mechanic clearly knows "what is best for my car better than I do." I do know enough to know if they are trying to rip me off.

So other than these sorts of common sense things, it's not clear how I have the faith you claim I do. Perhaps you can give an example of how I exercise such a faith in other people knowing what's best for me better than I do. I am more of an evidenced based guy and must say I really don't have much faith that you are right about this one.

D.

[Dardedar]

Link thread: the Anti- soma

****
HH: "Stormy Daniels is not only no politician, but is a part of the industry that has damaged Senator David Vitter's credibility with voters."

DAR
Isn't it other way around? To the extent Vitter's credibility is damaged it is from his own actions. He can't point to some "industry" that did it to him.

And think about how Stormy Daniels reputation was tarnished too. In bed with a politician? Not good.

Personally, I think consenting adults should have the freedom to conduct their affairs in such matters as they wish regardless of whether money is involved. But if you want to run as a GOP "family values" candidate, then you are going to have to admit to the howling hypocrisy.

Vitters is just the tip of the iceberg of some really nasty hypocrisy. See a list of about 60 pedophiles who are in republican leadership positions in the party of "family values."

http://www.armchairsubversive.org/

Here is a list of about 115 republican leaders who are just general sex hypocrites.

http://dkosopedia.com/wiki/Examples_of_ ... ral_values

And these are just the ones that got caught! (with their pants down of course)

D.

[Betsy]

My post on her thread:

I'm glad you gave some examples, too, but those are way off-point from your original point, which was about your fear of Obama and larger social issues. I hardly think you really meant relatively inconsequential issues like smoking bans and drinking on an airplane when you said Obama scares you, or that you don't have faith in politicians in general.

If you really fear Obama, I recommend reading his early autobiographical work "Dreams from my Father" for real insight to his level headed world view. I trust him very much to make careful decisions based on real information and not his emotions, empathy for the lives of citizens (yes EMPATHY), and his willingness to make personal sacrifices if necessary for the greater good. That is real leadership, and when people say they fear him, I just think they are uninformed and emotional.

How about giving some REAL examples of what you were talking about? You say Obama scares you, now please explain why? Is it just a general scared feeling that you can't explain? Is it because FOX news told you to be scared? If he has said or done something specific to scare you, perhaps further investigation of that particular act would provide an explanation or abatement of your fear, rather than just staying afraid.

-betsy

[Doug]

You say Obama scares you, now please explain why?

DOUG
For 99% of those who say that, the reasons are:

1. He's Black.
2. He's a Democrat.
3. FAUX NEWS tells them to be scared.

[Dardedar]

Anti-Soma, huh, interesting

Responding to Global Warming silliness. National Geographic article here.

****
HH: "Although, I wish they'd keep their agenda and predictions out of it,..."

DAR
You want scientists to talk about climate and not make predictions? What use would that be? This is the very essence of how science operates. It makes predictions and tests them. If the predictions fail, the theory fails because it's bad science. The predictions regarding global warming, going back to the 80's have been very accurate and we are finding, if anything, too conservative.

HH: "...and just put the facts out there--they're careful to state that this won't make a difference to global warming,..."

DAR
Actually they are careful to state they don't know, but there is good reason to believe this is much ado about nothing. To quote your article:

"I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down," Lockwood said."

HH: "...and that carbon dioxide, which we all exhale every time we breathe, is still increasing."

DAR
CO2 is not increasing because of breathing. It is increasing because we burn 80 million barrels of oil every day and via coal pack hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere (which stays there for a hundred years). Every gallon of gas burned adds 19 pounds of C02 to the atmosphere. The science of how CO2 warms the earth was understood 150 years ago.

HH: "Umm. Duh. So's the earth's population. Get over it."

DAR
Holly, you're not a dumb person. You read Aristotle. Why do you post something so foolish?

HH: "I mean, either the earth will get warmer, or it will get cooler."

DAR
We have about 95% certainty that it will get warmer, and a similar certainty that it is our actions which are a cause of this. This warming, and the speed of the change have a very high potential of having profound consequences for us and the planet.

HH: "It's a normal cycle, and we can't do as much about it as we think we can."

DAR
Wrong. We have near 100% certainty that this is not a normal cycle. We can actually measure the isotopes of the C02 in the atmosphere and know where the increase has come from, and it's coal and oil that we have drilled and mined and then burned.

HH: "..."carbon offset credits" are... the modern version of the Medieval Catholic Church's buyable absolution..."

DAR
Do you have a better method for steering industry/markets away from their carbon reliance? There are two good reasons to do this:

a) Carbon is a non-renewable dead end resource. The sooner we prepare for this inevitability the better.

b) Human induced climate change.

HH: "Shut up, guys, and let the actual weather tell us what the results of lower solar activity will be."

DAR
As the article says, for reasons given, it's unlikely to be significant. And very unlikely to counter the global warming effects we already have, and continue, to set in place.

D.
----------------------
"...the pace and scope of change surpasses even what scientists suspected a year ago [2006]:

* The Antarctic ice core record, for example, now extends back to 800,000 years. Yet scientists studying that record warn that current trends render moot any comparison with information locked in ice: The planet, they say, is warming to a degree unseen in 40 million years, as the first mammals were evolving. Sea sediments bolster that hypothesis."

Link

[Doug]

And this just in:
"...a new poll from ABC News and the Washington Post gives gay marriage an outright plurality, with 49 percent of adults supporting gay marriage and 46 percent opposed."

http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUni ... Issues.pdf

DOUG
Maine 5th State to Legalize Gay Marriage

(AUGUSTA, Maine) — Maine's governor signed a freshly passed bill Wednesday approving gay marriage, making it the fifth state to approve the practice and moving New England closer to allowing it throughout the region.

New Hampshire legislators were also poised to send a gay marriage bill to their governor, who hasn't indicated whether he'll sign it. If he does, Rhode Island would be the region's sole holdout.

See here.

[Dardedar]

More on Global Warming: Link

*******
HH: "No one knows for certain precisely what the effects will be."

DAR
No one knows for certain that gravity will be in effect tomorrow. Science does not peddle in certainties but rather levels of probability. The science supporting climate change are extremely robust.

HH: "Up until the late '70s, scientists were dead certain we were all going to die from a new ice age."

DAR
No, that's false. A lie peddled by dishonest commentators like George Will (who I usually like).

For starters, see:

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2 ... -1970s.php

And:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

For a debunk of Will's latest howlers on this see:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04 ... ts_wmo.php


HH: "Now they think we're all going to die from the earth broiling us slowly in our own juices."

DAR
No one makes such a claim. You might try not using such blatant strawman claims.


HH: "All the scientists have are hypotheses, not even full-fledged theories that are hypotheses borne out by multiple experimentation.

DAR
No, you are wrong. The claims of climate change are far beyond the hypothesis stage.

HH: "They don't know, and we don't know, that global warming will continue with nothing more than a blip."

DAR
We have about 95% certainty that it will be much more than a blip. There is a very small, about 5% chance, that your hope may be right.

HH: Nor do they--or we--know when or if another ice age will happen."

DAR
Actually we do have good science on this. You can learn about this here:

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ ... ig2-22.htm


HH: By the way--the Medieval warm period that ended in the mid-1300s was a bit warmer, according to physical evidence (tree rings, etc.) than today's global warming.

DAR
Sorry, that's rubbish too. I have debated this issue extensively. Hundreds of pages, hundreds of hours of research. The consensus is we are warmer now than during the MWP.

See:

http://www.desmogblog.com/nrc-exonerate ... n-skeptics

HH: "With less than a sixth of the population, and no industrialization."

DAR
As Mann demonstrated, the MWP was regional, not global. Many if not most of the anecdotes GW deniers pass around about this are false and this is very easy to show. Try a few and see.

HH: "I'm not saying that we have no effect--just that it's arrogant to think we have as much of an effect as the radical enviornmentalists do."

DAR
I don't look to "radical environmentalists" for good science. I look to the best peer-reviewed science. And it shows, with near unanimous consensus and a very high degree of certainty, that the claims regarding climate change are serious and accurate.

D.
---------------------
"According to a recent article in Eos (Doran and Zimmermann, 'Examining the Scientific consensus on Climate Change', Volume 90, Number 3, 2009; p. 22-23 - only available for AGU members - update: a public link to the article is here), about 58% of the general public in the US thinks that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing the mean global temperature, as opposed to 97% of specialists surveyed. The disproportion between these numbers is a concern, and one possible explanation may be that the <B>science literacy among the general public is low."</b>

Note: "Not one single, solitary scientific professional or honorific science organization has dissented from the consensus opinion on climate change. Not one. And it’s been examined in minute detail by the NAS, AGU and a veritable alphabet soup of scientists [and science organizations].

[Dardedar]

Few more howlers from HH on her anti-soma blog:

Thread

****
HH: Actually, Newsweek published an article on global cooling in 1975, titled "The Cooling World.">>

DAR
Both of my references already given above reference this lone Newsweek article (which I have read).

HH: Global cooling was, at that time assumed to be settled science. Much like global warming is today.>>

DAR
This is silliness on stilts. You really want to appeal, to a single article, in a non-science, non-peer reviewed, coffee table news magazine written for the lay public? This is your evidence for the "established science?"

If this were how science is conducted I could see your Newsweek article and raise you a thousand similar articles. But I wouldn't bother to do that because that would be silly. This is not how science works.

I will quote this fellow who makes my point:

"There was some speculation on the part of some scientists, and it got picked up in the popular press. But there was no serious peer-reviewed work which supported this speculation.

To imply any similarity, let alone equivalence, between such relatively unsupported speculation back in the 60's and 70's and the massive volume of peer-reviewed work on global warming today is dishonest in the extreme."

Note:

"Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40's to the 70's (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived.

The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970's), based on reading the papers is, in summary: "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…" (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms - the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling - but didn't know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970's, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ling-myth/

DAR
Anyway, any standard GW denier FAQ will include a roast of this terribly disingenuous "Global cooling myth."


HH: "Environmental scientists may not believe that we're going to broil in our own juices,..."

DAR
None of them do. So why say this?

HH: "...but some of the radicals that don't understand the science but BELIEVE to the core of their SOULS that humankind is a disease,

DAR
a) You don't understand the science
b) Quote someone who says or believes "humankind is a disease."
c) You make up strawmen arguments but when pressed you can't even produce the straw.
d) Why do you traffic in such palpable nonsense?

HH: ...rather than part of the normal biosphere for this planet sure do, and try to scare most of the rest of us into it, too (and no, I'm not making up straw men--I could name some of my students..."

DAR
This is your reference? You are reduced to saying you *could* name some of your students? You have had some students with idiotic beliefs? Really? This is supposed to be surprising or mean something?

HH: "As for the consensus--much of it ignores solar input and solar changes."

DAR
What, did the scientist who devote their lives to studying this just forget? Perhaps you should send them a reminder.

Of course this is ludicrous and you cannot support it. None of the science ignores this. But it is rather insignificant. Even your own article refutes this. Think about it. It reports that the sun has been dimming (ever so slightly) in the last hundred years, yet we know the earth has been warming. So either way your theory that solar input is causing this fails. Either the solar forcing is so insignificant it has no effect, or, gasp, <b>it works in reverse.</b>

Note: "Even if the evidence for solar forcing were legitimate, any
bizarre calculus that takes evidence for solar forcing of climate as evidence against greenhouse gases for current climate change is simply wrong.
Whether cosmic rays are correlated with climate or not, they have been regularly measured by the
neutron monitor at Climax Station (Colorado) since 1953 and show no long term trend. <b>No trend
= no explanation for current changes."</b>

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... the-times/

There is no long term trend since 1953. See the graphs at this science site. Sun forcing refuted.


HH: "Those that don't ignore it aren't really listened to."

DAR
I'll be blunt. You haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about and are simply regurgitating right-wing disinformation you have heard. The people who aren't listened to are the people that can't back up their claims.

HH: Global climate change happens. I don't deny that. We probably have an effect. I don't deny that, either.>>

DAR
Good, the evidence is now so strong it can hardly be denied. But why then why do you peddle the above twaddle? Old habit?

HH: What I balk at is that those of us in first world nations, such as the United States and most of Europe, must cripple ourselves economically to be even more non-polluting than we strive to be already,..."

DAR
The US represents about 5% of the earth's population yet uses nearly 25% of the earth's most polluting energy. This is an astounding imbalance and any direct assault on carbon usage is obviously going to have a greater impact on our wasteful lifestyle. We can do it now, the easy way or we can do it later the hard way. Buy doing it now, we get a jump on the green industries which represent the future.

HH: Publish the info, and let people draw their own conclusions from the facts.>>

DAR
The "info" has been published. You should read it. Start here. A good science site where climate science is discussed by climate scientists without reference to the politics.

http://www.realclimate.org/

Darrel.

[Dardedar]

Brain Must

Thanks Thomas for yet another rebuttal to Bob Hall's ridiculous "I'm Tired" rant.

For a more detailed rebuttal to his inauguration claim, here is what I put together:

****
"The cost of Obama's inauguration, minus the security costs? Approximately $45 million."

The amount spent on George Bush's inauguration in 2005? $42.3million

The amount spent on Bill Clinton's in 1993? $33 million.

Here's how the lie worked. They compared apples to oranges and didn't figure in Bush's security costs. Unbelievably stupid.

"However, buried in a recent New York Times article published one week before the controversy erupted over the cost of Obama's inauguration, the newspaper reported that in 2005, "the federal government and the District of Columbia spent a combined $115.5 million, most of it for security, the swearing-in ceremony, cleanup and for a holiday for federal workers" [emphasis added].

You read that correctly. The federal government spent $115 million dollars for the 2005 inauguration. Keep in mind, that $115 million price tag was separate from the money Bush backers bundled to put on the inauguration festivities. For that, they raised $42 million. So the bottom line for Bush's 2005 inauguration, including the cost of security? That's right, $157 million."

See: "AP Fabricates Cost Of Obama Inauguration"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/1 ... 58859.html

And: "The media myth about the cost of Obama's inauguration"

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200901170003

Bob Hall doesn't care about truth and accuracy. He likes to use the internet to spread lies and disinformation. This is why I regularly rebut his nonsense on our freethinker forum here:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5607&start=0

And here:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5658

D.

[Dardedar]

In the Shadow of Socialized Medicine

GM
If you remove those who don’t desire to purchase health insurance (not health care) than the number is closer to 22 million without.>>

DAR
As if that is an insignificant number (it isn't). Are you speaking of the destitute? Those would rather eat than purchase health insurance? Who doesn't desire to HAVE health insurance? I can't imagine anyone. I have never seen this number before and don't buy it.

GM
Remove the young and healthy from that equation and the number drops dramatically.>>

DAR
Right, young and healthy people never need health care!

GM
I’m not proposing anything at all,...>>

DAR
Yes, and why is that?

GM
except that government health care will result in both rationed care and a lower quality of care for everyone.>>

DAR
Actually, that's rubbish. It's possible to have a government health care option while letting rich happy folks keep the plans they have now. This is what Obama is proposing.

GM
As to the photographs, I beg to differ old friend - Cuba was ranked at 2 places below the United States in the last WHO rankings.>>

DAR
Correct. And the claim that only life expectancy was considered, is false.

GM
Michael Moore’s “Sicko” has been proven to be a sham at best and a flat out lie for political purposes at its worst.>>

DAR
You like to blow and go, but lets see you demonstrate something. Rightwingers love to spread lies about MM and I have debunked them over and over. MM makes it real easy since he backs up the claims in his movies on his website, line by line.

Let's see your "flat out lie."

Darrel.

[Dardedar]

DAR
Having some good exchanges in this thread.

Kicking butt and taking names in this thread. Boy, they're getting nasty when confronted. Then the owner locked the thread. Rightwing, blowhard, yellow bellied cowards!

[Dardedar]

DAR
Well, I have been posting quite a bit on rightwing blogs this week. I took Wednesday off of work and wrote a ridiculous amount of roast (twice as much as this). I thought I would post here just what I wrote today, an average day. Written in the morning, on lunch break and a bit tonight.

I've added a couple words in square brackets so it makes sense. This was posted mostly on Big Dog and some on GMsplace.

If there is interest in reading this, in this form, there is much more.

5/22/09

************
BLK: In that speech he [Obama] did not rule out bringing some of the terrorists at Gitmo to the United States.>>

DAR: Not "rule out?" He specifically said they are coming. Better hide.

BLK: How could the ones in jail be a danger?>>

DAR
He was speaking of the current attempt of guys like you trying to scare people by pretending these people will be a danger when they escape super max prisons.

BLK: what happens if they are found not guilty?>>

DAR
What do you think should happen to people who are found not guilty? Shot them in the knees?

BLK: He is finding out that it is not very easy to get rid of the people at Gitmo or Bush would have done so.>>

DAR
"The effort to shut down the facility, however, began during Bush's second term, promoted by Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates."

"One of the things that would help a lot is, in the discussions that we have with the states of which they (detainees) are nationals, if we could get some of those countries to take them back," Rice said in a Dec. 12, 2007 , interview with the British Broadcasting Corp. "So we need help in closing Guantanamo."
--http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090 ... hy/3237981


BLK: It was interesting listening to him because he blamed everything on George Bush..>>

DAR
Well if he did (he didn't) he would have gotten that part right.

BLK: and then said that Gitmo was used as a recruiting tool for the terrorists and that we are less safe because of the place.>>

DAR
Obviously true and confirmed over and over. See below.

BLK: Right, and the fact that we have not been attacked since 9/11 is proof that we are less safe.>>

DAR
No, it proves they like to take a break between attacks while they plan. That we were attacked on 9/11 proves Bush/Cheney were asleep on the job. Cheney was the chairman of a anti-terrorist "task force." He didn't chair a single meeting.

BLK: The best news of the day is that Dick Cheney gave a speech at the same time...>>

DAR
And the claims Cheney made were immediately ripped to shreds. Lie after lie is exposed and this time they are so blatant, so patently false, so absurd, even mainstream news sources are not hesitating go after his claims for what they are. Lies. It's actually refreshing to see the news actually calling a spade a spade for a change. See it all here:

"Cheney's speech contained omissions, misstatements"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090 ... hy/3237981

They take nine specific claims from Cheney, and they debunk them, substantively, factually. It's a beautiful thing to behold.

D.

****

BLK: "He repeatedly said he wasn’t pointing fingers,"

DAR
A search of the transcript shows the word "finger" only occurred once in the speech:

"I understand that it is no secret that there is a tendency in Washington to spend our time pointing fingers at one another."

Try again.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/2 ... 06189.html

D.

****
DAR
Thank you Big Dog for allowing dissent and a relatively free exchange of ideas (with understandable restrictions) on your busy forum. It makes your site much more interesting and informative than a sterile site that censors people for their opinions.

D.

****

The Pope can have his opinion, the problem is, there are a great number of people who (at least on some topics) think that whatever he says is true. Infallible. I knew a catholic lady who said she would believe whatever the Pope says.

But sometimes he's just wrong. See:

Pope 'distorting condom science'

"One of the world's most prestigious medical journals, the Lancet, has accused Pope Benedict XVI of distorting science in his remarks on condom use."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7967173.stm

*****

BLK: "...he prevaricated about the terror situation,..."

DAR
If you think you can back that up with an example, I would be pleased to examine it.


Cheney quote: "We had the anthrax attack from an unknown source.>>

DAR
How come we are always hearing that there were no attacks during Bush/Cheney? Which is it?

BLK: It is no accident that Dick Cheney’s popularity is growing as more and more...>>

DAR
When he goes away, people hate him a little less. Here are the numbers:

"Fifty-five percent of people questioned in the poll say they have an unfavorable opinion of the former vice president. Thirty-seven percent say they have a favorable opinion of Cheney, up 8 percentage points from January when he left office."

--http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/21/cheney.poll/

I think the GOP should keep him as a mascot. These smart republicans think otherwise:

----
"A National Journal poll of top GOP political insiders and strategists finds that Republicans believe former Vice President Dick Cheney has hurt the party since leaving office.

Of 100 insiders polled, fully 57 percent believe Cheney has hurt the party, and only 33 percent believe he has helped."

Quotes:

"Anything that reminds the public of the Bush administration harms the party's ability to turn the page. If he'd had any concern for his public image when he was in office, he wouldn't have to worry as much about defending his reputation now."

"There is nothing Dick Cheney can say or do to help the Republican Party today. The best thing he can do is disappear for the next 10 years."

"Let's face it: The guy doesn't know anything about winning elections outside of Wyoming."

"Not even a close call. With Cheney out there, Obama doesn't even need to remind the American people about the mess that was the Bush years."

"Cheney represents the grumpy intolerance that has come to characterize the GOP. Get off the stage!"

LINK

D.
-----------------------
Dowd opines:
"Cheney has replaced Sarah Palin as Rogue Diva. Just as Jeb Bush and other Republicans are trying to get kinder and gentler, Cheney has popped out of his dungeon, scary organ music blaring, to carry on his nasty campaign of fear and loathing.

The man who never talked is now the man who won't shut up. The man who wouldn't list his office in the federal jobs directory, who had the vice president's residence blocked on Google Earth, who went to the Supreme Court to keep from revealing which energy executives helped him write the nation's energy policy, is now endlessly yelping about how President Obama is holding back documents that should be made public."

****

DAR: media matters rips them [FOX] a new one daily.
GMR… can you substantiate that with dates, facts and figures?>>

DAR
Of course. I can bury you in specific, substantive, examples. How many would you like?

***
DAR: Olbermann, Maddow, debunk the [FOX] junk daily, on the fly
GMR… can you substantiate that, times, places and specific debunks each day?>>

DAR
Of course, or you can tune them in yourself.

***
DAR: Any one who takes FOX seriously is hardly one who can be taken seriously.
GMR…really? can you provide IQ data for the watchers so that the rest of us can ascertain that NO ONE who watches them has the intellectual capacity to be taken seriously>>

DAR
As you acknowledge, I didn't say anything about IQ or intellectual capacity. I lost faith in the ability of IQ tests when I met a fellow from mensa who believed the moon landing was a hoax. Doing well on IQ tests, or even being bright doesn't mean a person knows how to think well or that they have good discernment or critical thinking skills. A good understanding of cults and human nature show us that time and again people choose to isolate themselves in cult like groups, political and religious, and they get trapped into believing absurdities. It doesn't mean they are dumb. It just means they are stuck.


***
DAR: It’s our national propaganda channel [FOX]. Everybody knows that.
GMR… oh really (again - this is getting tiring Darrell)? I didn’t know that and I have a couple of liberal friends that watch FOX religiously if for no other reason than to be able to do some opposition research.>>

DAR
Watching for "opposition research" is not incompatible with my claim (an opinion), that FOX is a propaganda channel.

***
DAR: With FOX watchers realize we are dealing with people so simple.
GMR… really? Want to match My IQ with yours or Marks with yours?>>

DAR
I thought that's what we were doing.

GMR: statististics alone says I have only a 1.5% chance of having one lower than yours?>>

DAR
If you're so smart, why did you put a question mark at the end of that sentence? After you've met a few dumb dumb's with Ph.D.'s you become less impressed with such tests.


***
DAR: Even Bush didn’t know this when he hired him [Colbert] to roast him
GMR… you know this for a fact that Bush hired him or that someone else didn’t not knowing about Colbert? >>

DAR
You're suggesting that Bush may have delegated this task to someone so clueless they hired Colbert without "knowing about Colbert?" That's even worse.

I don't doubt that he delegated the task. But:
a) That's passing the buck
b) I don't doubt that he would have done it himself.

I say this because, as this study shows, conservatives just don't seem to understand that Colbert is making fun of them. And that's absolutely amazing to me. An interesting quirk in human nature.

See:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/2 ... 91899.html

GMR: ...try to be a little less antagonistic and obnoxious will you?>>

DAR
A fellow below my post just noted that everyone "who voted for Obama and doesn't regret" it is an "idiot or a socialist pig." In contrast, I try to keep my points substantive and relevant, with very little on the name calling or ad hominem side. You're probably not going to like my opinion at times. This doesn't make it "obnoxious."

D.

****

JMB: "Anyone who voted for Obama, and has not learned to regret it, is either an idiot, or a socialist pig,...">>

DAR
It's safe to say republican Pat Buchanan didn't vote for Obama but he did give him a rating of "A" on his first hundred days. Do you think that makes him an "idiot" or a "socialist pig?"

D.
----------------
Fox News Caught Repeatedly Cropping, Manipulating Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC2DJR8I ... r_embedded

3 min.


***

BLK: "As to the prevarication,just look at the terms they want to use- “man caused disaster”- what’s up with this mealy mouthed stuff?>>

DAR
A search of the transcript shows "man caused" does not occur. The term "disaster" does occur once. Here is the comment, in context:

***
"We have re-energized a global non-proliferation regime to deny the world's most dangerous people access to the world's deadliest weapons, and launched an effort to secure all loose nuclear materials within four years. We are better protecting our border, and increasing our preparedness for any future attack or natural disaster. We are building new partnerships around the world to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates."

It's not too much to ask you to be honest and accurate in your criticisms.


BLK:
Oh- it’s not a War On Terror- it’s now an “Overseas Contingency Operation” What?>>

DAR
GW Bush said it was misnamed. What did he think it should be called? I think we should ask him. He is what he said:

"We actually misnamed the war on terror. It ought to be the Struggle Against Ideological Extremists Who Do Not Believe in Free Societies Who Happen to Use Terror as a Weapon to Try to Shake the Conscience of the Free World."
—George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 6, 2004

That's a genuine quote. I think you should use that title.


BLK: "...but then they [nut-job liberals] have had a lot of practice cherry- picking facts and distorting half truths.>>

DAR
While I do acknowledge your obvious expertise in the area of "cherry-picking facts" and distorting half truths," let me inform you that there is a difference between making such a claim and actually demonstrating it. While you are good at making claims, I am better at demonstration. You should try adopting my method. It works much better in the long run.

BLK: "...ignorance is a real problem in this country when it comes to reality.>>

DAR
Oh, I couldn't agree more. You've hit the nail on the head. But I can help you with this, and already have.

D.

***

BLK: Oh, and those “republicans” you refer to? ... they should turn in their Republican creds if they are ashamed of Cheney...>>

DAR
Good point. Make your tent even smaller. What you need to do is purge those moderates (the Demo's will take them), and make your party more pure.

D.
---------------
"GOP Right Strengthen Democrats

Washington Post

The PA Conservatives were targeting him, so to survive, Specter will switch parties. This means that the Democrats can now pass anything they like, with no check, for the next two years.

This has happened before. Every time the very conservative wing of the party helps defeat or drive out a RINO, they don't strengthen the GOP, they strengthen the Democrats.

It happened when the GOP right ganged up on liberal Senator Ed Brooke in Massachusetts. The result was Paul Tsongas, followed by John Kerry. This was an improvement over Brooke?

The Republicans lost control of the senate when the conservatives drove out Jim Jeffords of Vermont.

We will eventually make the party so pure that we win no elections."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix ... id=topnews


***

Let's review:

***
BLK: “…he prevaricated about the terror situation,…”

DAR
If you think you can back that up with an example, I would be pleased to examine it.
***

BLK: As to the prevarication,just look at the terms they want to use- “man caused disaster”>>

DAR
I asked you to back up your claim with an example. You provided one. Only you made one up that didn't exist.

Did you think I wouldn't notice?

D.
-----------
"Errors, like straws, upon the surface flow; He who would search for pearls must dive below." --John Dryden (1631-1700)

****

BLK: "you are right- you will win no elections.">>

DAR
If you read the article carefully, you will see the author is providing evidence and making a cogent argument for the republican party, not the Demo's.

You do know that saying things, doesn't make them true?

BLK: We have you where we want you.>>

DAR: The conservatives had it all, the conservatives lost it all, and the Demo's are in control.

And this is right where where you wanted them.

Got it.

D.
---------------
[after Arthur's cut off both of the Black Knight's arms]
Look, you stupid Bastard. You've got no arms left.

Black Knight: Yes I have.
King Arthur: *Look*!
Black Knight: It's just a flesh wound."
--Monty Python

***

BIGDOG: They did not debunk Cheney.>>

DAR
Yes they did. Nine specific comments, responded to directly, point by point.
In another thread, Blake said Obama prevaricated in his speech. I asked him for an example. He then made something up that Obama didn't even say in the speech (he did that twice actually).

BIGD: They claimed he [Cheney] had omissions and misstatements.>>

DAR
And they showed it. He lied by omission and "misstatements" is polite talk for lie. Cheney can't be *that* misinformed.

I would really like to be more conservative on some issues. I am a swing voter. But I have a real problem with the blatant dishonesty in your party right now. You can read those 9 examples and not have a problem with that? If Obama had one of those in his speech I would squirm. If he had a couple it would be a real problem. But nine?!

One example:

***
Cheney accused Obama of "the selective release" of documents on Bush administration detainee policies, charging that Obama withheld records that Cheney claimed prove that information gained from the harsh interrogation methods prevented terrorist attacks.

"I've formally asked that (the information) be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained," Cheney said. "Last week, that request was formally rejected."

Response:
"However, the decision to withhold the documents was announced by the CIA, which said that it was obliged to do so by a 2003 executive order issued by former President George W. Bush prohibiting the release of materials that are the subject of lawsuits."
***

Read the CIA response here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/1 ... 03596.html


BIGD: However, it is clear that he was on target.>>

DAR
If you make that many misstatements of fact in one speech, and this is your idea of "on target" I suggest you need to adjust your scope or raise you standards.

BIGD: Did you read all of Obama and Biden’s lies from similar sites before you voted?>>

DAR: "all of" their "lies?"

Oh please, do share one with me. Hit me with your best shot. Get one that's right "on target."

D.

****

End.

Note: Big Dog's heading on his blog is: "Don't ever argue with the Big Dog, cause the Big Dog is always right."

[Dardedar]

DAR
If you want to get your rightwing crazy on, join me over at The Big Dog's site here.

Apparently the US Parks Service is trying to build a monument to Islam on the flight 93 crash site.

D.